I've seen Jose's teams adopt a 4-3-3 on occasion but I've never seen him turn to a 4-4-2.
Horrendous post to say the very least. Ignorance personified.
Agreed. There's no such thing as 'winning' in the transfer market. It's the value of the silverware that counts.
Same was said about Drogba and then the world watched him improve his all round play until he became one of the most feared strikers in the world.
Wait for griezmann next summer, also add a dynamic player in the midfeild who helps in attacking transition in a better way than a deep sitting midfeilder. Besides lukaku is some what creative too , he aint a total lump though.
It is what it is. I would not say its total crap though. It sure will work other wise mourinho would not have cared about the price for morata. Besides Lukaku is a better finisher there is no doubts about it.
For instance, Chelsea (a FA Cup) (Mkhitaryan, Rashford), Middlesbrough (a) (Mata, Rashford), Chelsea (h) (Lingard, Rashford), Arsenal (a) (Rooney, Martial). You could say it's still 4-2-3-1, but I'm focusing on the differences. Basically, it became an option when Zlatan got injured, to deal with the fact nor Rashford nor Martial can play alone upfront, so another attacking player had to be closer to the striker than having the wingers up the field as usual.
Well we chose not to pay the price, Dont think chelsea will get him for any less.
Everything I said in that post was true, but carry on.
I am. Probably because I had been expecting Morata.
You are having a proper meltdown
Why would anyone believe a word said by the likes of full time devils?
Chelsea don't need strengthening as much, apart from a striker, so they might be willing to go that bit extra. Also think he would fit in well there.
Exactly so we could very well play Rashford, Lukaku AND Martial in some games or could even drop one of Mkhitaryan or Mata in between as a 10 amd go with Rashford, Lukaku, Mkhitaryan/Mata and Martial.
No it wasn't
I am indifferent between the two because I am not totally convinced by either of them for totally different reasons.I am. Probably because I had been expecting Morata.
I also think so, But surely Morata should be way below Lukaku's price in an ideal world. Just the case of we aint getting mugged by madrid.
Looks like smokescreen worked. Also, it was yesterday's tweet.
Wow, you guys are taking this far too seriously.No it wasn't
Lukaku is nothing like a Pulis striker. Long balls to him are his weakness.
You should spend some time watching him play before chatting rubbish.
Should we ruin next season to wait for someone who preferred the Madrid's answer to Everton for us? We need goals. Neither Lukaku nor Morata can provide them on their own. We need to move for someone else
I've seen plenty of him, his hold up play is poor, I have already said that, but you can lump in crosses for him all day, he's not bad aerially at all, just look at the stats, so please quit your shit. I was spot on that his lack of movement and agility will be exposed by the way teams play against us and that his touch is poor, which you ignored.No it wasn't
Lukaku is nothing like a Pulis striker. Long balls to him are his weakness.
You should spend some time watching him play before chatting rubbish.
That's not Morata's fault is it. Perez has stitched the boy up.
Again as i said , we need goals from martial MKh pogba and rashford and mata more than a single another player. The griezmann farce have forced us to wait.
Its perez's fault, We have limits we can go for a player of his quality and numbers.
We need goals. 1 single player won't provide that and the current players have failed miserably in it. Hopefully Lukaku and Morata will be the kick at the backside they need to start doing their job well. Regarding Griezmann he made his choice and he will have to live with it. United are way bigger then Griezmann
If those don't deliver any striker will be a waste of time. The amount those players produce Lukaku will need 30 goals.
Ah yes after Zlatan got injured. I recall slight variations in the tactics in those games but I do not remember seeing 2 strikers up front. He may have turned to a 4-3-3 - which in truth is essentially a more attacking version of 4-2-3-1 for all intents and purposes and looks very similar to a 4-2-3-1 to the naked eye - which is maybe what's causing the confusion here.
It's strange that you basically can't hold a proper discussion on any aspect brought up, we've bought a guy that you pump balls to and hope to get on the counter despite most teams playing too deep against us for that to ever be effective, you certainly don't play good football on the ground with a #9 that has the first touch of an Elephant.
The thing is we didn't have two strikers then, really. For Mourinho, the 4-3-3 is the defensive version of the 4-2-3-1. But I guess with Lukaku the eventual turn to 4-4-2 will be dropped, since it doesn't make much sense (unless we still get Griezmann).
I agree with you about the harmful nature of outdated model of manager-led squad development but this seems a bit extreme. You can't think of teams that played great football with oafs up front? Really?
No, are you counting Manduzkic at Bayern?
or Courtois
One of the most attractive teams in football history, Brazil in '82, had that big lump Serginho leading the line. There are lots more examples if you think about it.
